gdp's Comments

Race Relations Project : Letter from an Inmate

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:43:49 +0000

This was a very insightful letter. I feel like we never think about what happens to criminals once they are sent to jail. For many, especially the victim’s family, murders deserve to go to prison forever, and these people want that person to suffer in jail for the rest of his life. However, the truth seems to be that as these men are in jail, they change and mature just as we do on the outside. They do not stay miserable forever. They come to accept their situation and make the best of it. I think many of them read and try to learn. I still ca not believe the writer of this letter didn’t graduate high school because he wrote so well. Some of these men probably made just one stupid decision, and now they are in jail forever. I think they should be there because that’s the law, but it sucks for them and their families. In the letter the writer mentions that sometimes guys give up their phone time if it is another man’s daughter’s birthday so he can talk to her. I think we forget about all the connections these lifers have to the outside world and how devastating it is to those who now have to live without their fathers, brothers, or husbands for the rest of their lives. I think the fact that these men do show compassion to each other just shows how normal they are. They are ordinary people who made the wrong decisions. However, they still have emotions. Life does not stop for them once they enter prison, it just changes. They join a new community of men and make friends and enemies, just like we do on the outside. I think it is incredible that they donate money during natural disasters and care about the world at large. I feel like they still consider themselves part of society in a way. They think of prison just as the place they must stay, not as a barrier to eliminate their involvement in the world. Their optimism is encouraging for everyone. They wake up every day in the same place, wear the same clothes, and probably eat the same food, but they are still alive and it seems to me that they embrace that as best they can. I honestly think some people on the outside could learn from the lifers. Some of us have so much money and many possessions, yet we still are not happy. The lifers are in jail and manage to be content and even happy in some cases. This just shows that happiness comes from inside yourself and from those around you. The physical possessions do not matter. The lifers accept who they are and where they are and do their best to embrace life. We all should do the same. We are not always happy with what we have to do, who we are, or where we are, but if we accept the circumstances and try to be content it can make up happier people.

Race Relations Project : Christian Invaders - the turnaround

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:44:45 +0000

Today’s lecture was crazy. The example that Sam used with the Chinese invading the United States was really useful to me. It made me see things as best as I’ll ever be able to from the side of Arab Muslims, and it really made me think. If I were an Arab Muslim trying to live in my country, I’d want to be left alone. But since the US army didn’t leave, I’d fight to be left alone. I would want to protect my family from the US army. Many times, the US soldiers give a bad representation of America. The YouTube video of soldiers plowing over an Arab’s car was very upsetting to me. It’s bad enough many Arabs are struggling to keep what they have, and then US soldiers who are supposed to be there to help and to do good for the people do cruel things to innocent people. It makes America as a whole look evil to those Arabs. There are also the soldiers who use torture methods on Arabs and the soldiers who raped women. Again, more bad rep for America. This lecture was really eye-opening. Before today, I never thought about all the civilians who are people like me and my family. Their lives must be turned upside-down after all that has occurred in their country. And for what, oil? I knew oil was part of the reason we went over to the Middle East, but I never knew whether or not it was the sole reason. From the quotes we heard from George Bush and an oil company executive, it seems that oil was the most important reason for our leaders who decided the US should move into the Middle East. One thing I am confused about, though, was the other two things Sam said we wanted to do in the Middle East. He said in addition to wanting oil, US leaders also want to convert Arab Muslims to Christians and to kill. What I don’t understand is why would it matter whether or not the Muslims are converted to Christianity if the goal is to kill them? Is it that US leaders want them all dead, but if they must live, they should live as Christians? I thought it was also interesting at the end of class the slide Sam put up that listed a few of the Muslim beliefs. Some of them are very similar to Catholic beliefs. They believe Jesus was a great prophet and they believe Moses was the leader of the people. It just shows that we’re not as different as we think. Not all Arab Muslims want to kill American Christians. I think only the extremists have this idea and some who have been abused by the US army, and if our country was invaded by the Chinese and they wouldn’t leave us alone, I’d want to kill them, too.

Race Relations Project : What might be the second step?

Fri, 9 Apr 2010 18:49:53 +0000

I think it’s difficult to pinpoint a second step. Talking to my friends after class, we all agreed that if one individual did something such as stopped eating chocolate, not only would it be very challenging, but it wouldn’t end slavery. The only way I think it can end is if these industries shut down due to a lack of consumers. Even then it would be difficult to end because the companies would continue to move their factories around the world to new workers who would easily be taken advantage of and paid nothing for their work. Until these companies make zero profit, I don’t think there is a way to end slavery. It would be close to impossible for them to stop making profit, though. Slavery is embedded in so many industries that we would literally have to stop buying food and clothing in order to hurt the industries and help the slaves. Also, if you stop eating one food that is made from slave labor such as chocolate, you need to keep in mind that you are only focusing on one industry. When you eat a salad with lettuce and tomatoes, you are also eating foods that are rooted in slave labor. It’s kind of like what Sam talked about with picking and choosing what rules you follow of your religion. He said people who only follow some of the rules are hypocrites. I think that is similar for this topic. You can cut out one food, but you shouldn’t condemn others for eating it because other foods that you eat come from slaves. Basically, there really isn’t a way to turn away from all the products that are produced by slaves. We’d have to start growing everything on our own and make our own clothes. We can help by supporting companies who produce products that are not made by slaves such as FairTrade, but as far as ending modern slavery all together, I don’t see a way of doing so for now. With our lifestyles, we depend on many companies for technology, too. I’m sure if you trace some of the pieces needed to assemble our mp3 players or cell phones we’d see that they also come from slave labor. I think our society demands too much, and this has led to slavery. Companies need to produce mass quantities of everything to supply everyone’s desires, and therefore the products need to be made quickly. In order to produce this much, the companies need to hire cheap labor, but they often just choose to use slaves. If our world evolved to a slower pace of life, I think we could help free the slaves because they wouldn’t be needed to produce so much. However, I doubt we will be slowing our lifestyles anytime soon.

Race Relations Project : Isn't a person's qualifications an issue?

Sat, 3 Apr 2010 02:16:34 +0000

I don’t think affirmative action necessarily lowers the quality of workers. I think companies typically make sure a potential worker is qualified for the position. For example, if it comes down to a man and a woman of equal credentials, they might pick the woman to meet the quota. Even then though, the woman will probably work harder than the man would have because in the work force, especially in a field dominated by men such as engineering, women need to prove themselves so they are taken seriously, whereas a man who is hired will be more likely to slack off because he wouldn’t worry as much about what others thought. I’m sure there are other cases where employers just pick a minority to meet the quota. In this instance problems can definitely occur if the new worker’s qualifications are not up to par. I don’t think there is any way to justify this. Sometimes affirmative action can be a good thing because it keeps diversity in the workplace, but anytime the quality of the company or product is neglected, affirmative action can have very negative effects. As far as nepotism goes, I think quality is often compromised. Usually when people help their family or friends, they are doing so because the person in need of assistance cannot find work or does not have the skills to get a job on his/her own. This means that the person will be given a position for which he/she probably does not qualify. This is not fair to other people trying to get the same position who are qualified, and it is also not fair to the employer or company. The new worker will probably do a below average quality level of work, and this will hurt the business. I definitely agree with the guy on this video that industries like healthcare can suffer. Nepotism should be used lightly, because if you help someone who is struggling to get into medical school and he/she becomes a doctor then eventually makes a big mistake such as killing someone during a surgery, you are somewhat to blame for helping them get to that position. I know this sounds extreme but there are instances where dramatic things like this can occur, and it’s not worth taking the risk. If someone isn’t qualified for a position, they shouldn’t be accepted into it. A big problem with nepotism is that it is like lying because it often involves writing fabricated recommendations for people who do not deserve them. Doing this can have a chain negative effect and hurt many people including consumers or patients. Overall, I think this guy brings up a really good point that I didn’t even think of, and it just gives another reason why nepotism is so bad for society. I single out nepotism because I don’t think affirmative action does this as much. As Sam said, affirmative action is much more controlled by quotas and such than nepotism is.

Race Relations Project : In Her Own Words

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:53:24 +0000

This monologue was great. I think Laurie really got the point across to the audience. Bleeding is one thing I never really thought about in relations to the world. I always knew guys got grossed out by it and that has always made me mad. One time a guy I know said that it “wasn’t real blood.” I have no idea what that means or what he thinks it is, but it’s like all guys have this idea that periods are evil. I think they feel this way for several reasons. Obviously because they don’t bleed and to them it’s inferior, but also because females are often moody and don’t want to have sex when they have their periods. Throughout the years, I think periods have really been built up to be absolutely disgusting in guys’ heads. Sometimes if you tell a guy you have your period, he looks at you like you have a rare disease and are contagious. It’s over the top! I love the fact that Sam brought it up during class and everyone was freaking out, mainly the guys, because every month there’s always a girl who feels like dirt because of a guy’s reaction to her period, so it was nice to see the guys forced to listen to this for once. Bleeding is as natural as any other human trait, so I don’t know what the big deal is, and I really think guys should relax. I actually respect guys more if they are comfortable with talking to a girl if she says, “I have my period.” If anyone is looking for a girlfriend, I suggest you come to terms with your phobia of this natural womanly cycle. In all honesty, bleeding signifies health and fertility (good things!). Also guys should rejoice when a girl he’s had sex with gets her period unless he wants a baby. Although getting your period sucks, it’s natural and when I get it at its regular time, I’m happy. It’s my way of knowing I’m in good health (and not pregnant). Since we deal with it and actually have to go through it once a month, the least guys can do is be relaxed, even sympathetic with us. I agree with what Laurie said at the end about having pretending you don’t have your period and how different it would be if we were more open to periods. I mean I don’t think you need to announce it to everyone, but you shouldn’t have to hide it the way women do. If one of my friends asks me for a tampon, she says it in the quietest whisper, and when I give her the tampon, you swear I was passing her an illegal drug. There’s no reason it needs to be so secretive and unaccepted.

Race Relations Project : Does this rudeness thing cut both ways?

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:30:01 +0000

I was thinking the same thing as this guy, and I also discussed it with a friend of mine in the class and he noticed it as well. Last week a white person used the N-word in a text on the board and a black girl in the class spoke out that she was offended. However, when the black people in class had their chance to text, someone used the N-word again, but this time nothing was said. This is so annoying to me, and I don’t get it. If you’re offended by that word, then it shouldn’t matter who says it. It’s not fair to have a double standard. I feel like at times black people have been outspoken when a white person says the word to accuse that person of racism. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that it’s okay to say the N-word. I have never used that word and never will, but it’s not fair when black people call each other the N-word but then freak out on white people for saying it. They shouldn’t pick and choose who’s allowed to say it. If you’re offended by it, then speak out against anyone who says it, not just white people. Why use the word, anyway? I don’t get why some black people call each other that word. It’s as if when they say it to each other, its meaning is “buddy,” or “bro.” The fact of the matter is that the N-word is a derogatory term in itself. As far as other offensive comments, I feel like some people (black or white) think that making fun of white people is funny. I’m not offended by this, but at the same time I don’t agree with it. When Sam showed us the website of the things white people love, some of the things listed didn’t even make sense to me. I think white people are often targeted for silly amusement. The song we heard in class, “White & Nerdy,” is also a good example of this. White people often make fun of themselves and other white people as well, so black people probably think it is okay to make fun of them too. This is like the N-word situation reversed, but in this case no one speaks out that they are offended because white people (at least those in class) don’t have a double standard of who can say what when making fun of white people. Overall, I think white people are a lot more laidback than black people when it comes to instances when people of one race talk about or make fun of another. I think that if more black and white people were friends with each other it wouldn’t be this way because there would be more of an understanding of what is or isn’t offensive.

Race Relations Project : What's With the Theme Parties?

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 03:07:07 +0000

I really wish this girl said more about the themes to which she is referring. The only theme that I know of that she could be talking about is the “gangster” theme, and that’s not even a racial theme. Gangsters can include people of any race such as the Italian or Irish Mafias or the Crips and Bloods. On top of all this, I think I may have heard about one “gangster” themed party. Most of the themed parties just go along with the trends like the “guido/guidette” parties which stem from “Jersey Shore” or seasonal holidays like an “ugly sweater” Christmas party. There are even more themes such as a “sticker” party, “highlighter” party, or “would you be my friend if I wore this” party, that are done with the intentions to be goofy and add humor to the event. As far as white people being the only people to have themed parties, that doesn’t even seem to have a connection to me. If black people want to have themed parties then they should do that. I don’t know what race has to do with it. In fact I know a bunch of black girls at Penn State who recently went to a “lingerie” party hosted by black guys, so there’s an example of a themed party put together by black people. Also, the fact that Penn State is largely populated by white people (only 13% of the enrollment is composed of students of color according to Penn State’s admissions website: http://admissions.psu.edu/facts/studentbody/ ) means that white people are typically hosting parties. If these parties happen to be themed, it’s done with the intentions to have fun, not to “make fun” of black people. Usually the theme is just to be silly and dress differently than we typically do, not to dress like black people. In all honestly, the people who have the right to be upset about some themed parties are women in general. Themes such as “CEOs and Office Hoes” are degrading to females, and I know of lots of themed parties such as this one that are hosted regularly. The goal of many themed parties is often to get girls to wear as little as possible and has nothing to do with race. Overall, I see no correlation between white people and themed parties. I think a theme is a common thing to do whenever anyone hosts a party. And the idea that white people’s themed parties are done to make fun of black people is outlandish. As I said, there aren’t many themed parties that even have a theme related to black people, so I don’t really know how someone could get the idea that these parties are intended to target black people.

Race Relations Project : Native Americans: Question Two

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:45:50 +0000

If you live in this country and claim land, Sam says you are a part of the problem. I agree with this. Even though the genocide of the American Indians occurred hundreds of years ago, the continuation of immigrants coming to the United States to live today is rooted from the beginning of Europeans migrating to this country years ago. So basically the process of immigrating and taking land for yourself is still going on, and that is the problem. We continue to claim land when it was never ours to claim in the first place. The more we build and develop the land in the United States, the less land there will be available to the American Indian reservations, because think about it—as we push the boundaries out farther and farther, we set the borders for the reservations and we choose what land to give the American Indian tribes. They’re going to continually get less resourceful land as the population in this country grows. That’s why we’re all to blame. We’re following the same patterns and footsteps of the first immigrants. We have never tried to change this behavior, and it has gotten worse, because most people want big homes and yards which require a lot of land. I think a good way to understand why we should take the blame for the injustice to the American Indians is if we mentally reverse the situation. For example, let’s say your grandfather immigrated to the United States, settled down, and built a farm. He gave his son that farm and you grew up on it. Then when it was your turn to inherit it new immigrants moved in and settle on the outer edge of the farm. You might not care so much at first, but by the end of your lifetime these new immigrants might have continually moved onto the farm, so not only are they on the land, but they are also using your resources. You would be mad along with your children, and they would tell their children about it and so on down through the generations. Eventually, your great-grandchildren would have no land or resources, making them even bitterer towards the newer settlers. Clearly your family would hate these settlers and rightly blame them for taking what was not theirs. That’s the way I think of it when I try to understand the situation. Just because we were born in the United States and have lived with our parents on the land they claimed doesn’t mean we’re not a part of the problem. Once we get jobs and have money we’re also going to move away and claim our own land. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do this. In fact, we really don’t have much of a choice, but I do think we all need to realize that our ancestors weren’t the first settlers in the United States. I think if you stand up for your family and stick by their side, you also have to take the same blame and responsibility that they take. Our ancestors pushed the American Indians off of their land to better their own lives, and in turn, ours. It is important to realize that we are profiting from their injustice against the American Indians, and therefore we must also accept the blame for the continuation of this today.

Race Relations Project : Another Reason Why Gay Marriage Matters

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:00:50 +0000

This story is heart-breaking. It kind of hits me hard especially because before Tuesday’s class I was not for gay “marriage.” I say it like that because I was never against the uniting of a gay couple and I always thought that they should get the same rights as a married couple, but I didn’t think it should be called marriage for religious reasons. However, Sam made a great point in class and with the one slide he put up (the comic with the different types of couples). He was saying that unless you follow all of your religion’s practices and beliefs that you shouldn’t judge and that you can’t choose and pick which beliefs you want to follow. I never thought about it like that and I definitely agree which is why I’m now okay with calling the uniting of a gay couple a marriage. Seeing this video, I got upset thinking that I had a problem with calling it a gay marriage in the first place. I never considered the damage that could be caused by it not being a marriage. This video reassures me even more that the government needs to give gay people the right to unite in marriage with the same rights as any heterosexual couple. Just like any husband and wife, Jay and Shirley are committed to one another and are raising a family together. There shouldn’t be any reason that Jay cannot petition for Shirley to stay in the country, and there wouldn’t be if their relationship was recognized as a marriage. If they have the right to adopt children and create a family, they should have every right to protect that family. It is in the best interest of Jay and the couple’s twin sons that Shirley be able to remain with them in the United States. The government should not exclude couples from certain rights just because both people are of the same gender. We live in the United States, and last time I checked all Americans have the freedom to be whomever we choose. This includes the liberty to choose whom we love and want to spend our lives with. The American government should not look down upon gay couples when they have the right to be gay in the first place. It’s basically saying, “Yes, you can be gay if you want. But you can’t …” No, it needs to be in black and white. If you’re gay, embrace it, be who you are, love whom you wish, and live your life under the protection of the government in the same way any heterosexual couple can. Hopefully as more people accept gay relationships the United States government will recognize gay marriages equally to those of heterosexual couples. If not, I think there will be a more division and fighting within our country which is the last thing we need right now.

Race Relations Project : Animals vs. Humans vs. Welfare Cheats

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:57:52 +0000

Wow. I never knew that cutting off people’s food supplies would control the population. Basically, that’s what Bauer is saying. I think he’s forgetting that some of these people will starve to death without food. But whatever I guess, as long as they don’t have kids and food stamps don’t have to be distributed to them it’s not Bauer’s or anyone else’s problem. Politicians really need to watch themselves if they want votes from anyone. They are supposed to be leaders for their communities, but many of them have become more like animals themselves than any unfortunate person on food stamps. It’s extremely disappointing to hear a politician say such terrible things about people – human beings with brains and hearts like everyone else. I don’t think he even considered how hurtful it must have been for people on food stamps to hear such things. Not only was it terrible that Bauer’s apology was insincere (because by saying he “didn’t intend to hurt anyone,” he really was putting it onto the people who were offended instead of himself), but the fact that he even used that metaphor in the first place was ridiculous. There is absolutely no connection between stray animals and people on food stamps. Plus, he is stereotyping an entire class of people. Yes, maybe some people on food stamps are cheating the system, and I agree that adult food stamp recipients should be drug-tested, but to classify anyone as an animal is wrong. Like Sam said, the majority of people on food stamps are children to make things worse. So not only did Bauer make his outlandish comment, but he clearly didn’t know what he was talking about at all because I would hope that if he knew that the majority of food stamp recipients were children he wouldn’t have been blaming them for anything. After all, children don’t choose who their parents are or what their socioeconomic status is. They get by on what they are given, and it would be a shame to see food stamps taken away from children. I understand that some people to have more children to get food stamps, but at the end of the day, those children need basic necessities to survive or need new homes. We can’t punish them for their mothers’ decisions. Overall, Bauer was way out of line and should look into the facts of public matters before making comments to the press. I think he made a fool out of himself, especially because he really didn’t give a decent apology. This just shows that he meant what he said. I don’t think he deserves any political power, because his comment showed that he isn’t working for the whole community, only those who have enough money to care for their families without public aid.

Race Relations Project : Avatar and the White Man's Burden

Fri, 5 Feb 2010 20:41:40 +0000

I saw “Avatar” and loved the movie, but I did not recognize the White Messiah theme until I read the article by Brooks. I can see where Brooks is coming from as I think back to the movie, but I never thought about it having to do with race. To me it was more about a hero saving the people who deserved to be saved. Although the hero was white, he came from a world with other white people who were greedy and were the ones causing trouble in the first place, so the movie isn’t portraying white people in general as saviors because there was only one good white guy (and maybe three of his friends) out of them all who realized the pain they were causing others and decided to change that. In fact, you can almost think of the real savior as the Na’vi tribe. In the end, the Na’vi people were able to fight and remain on their land with the help of the hero, but they actually saved the hero as well. If he hadn’t met them and if they hadn’t allowed him to join the tribe, he would have continued down the same destructive path that the other marines were on, and at the end of the movie he would have died from his battle wounds. However, the Na’vi people saved him. I think Brooks is overlooking this point of view. He doesn’t consider how the Na’vi tribe saves the hero, only how the hero aids the Na’vi. I think it was obvious, however, that the hero needed the tribe as much as they needed him. It was more of a give and take relationship rather than what Brooks suggests about one White Messiah and a group of people who follow him. As far as the Na’vi people are concerned, they are the good guys. They are the care-free, nature-respecting, happy people, and they would not need help from the outside if they weren’t being targeted for their land by foreigners. The theme I really got out of the movie was how destructive we are to our world, or in this case, another people’s world. I think the movie focused more around how willing we are to destroy anything to get what we want, and we don’t care who gets hurt in the process. (I’m saying “we” because the movie centered on the US Marines.) The marines are a good example that you can only damage so much before you yourself get destroyed. The hero stepped in to help the people whose land we tried to destroy, but without the Na’vi tribe, he would not have been freed from his damaging, rigid lifestyle. He learned the right way to live from them, so in actuality we are the ones who need to be saved. Overall, I see where Brooks is coming from, but as I said, I think the main theme is about destruction and the damage it causes, and the overall relationship between the hero and the Na’vi tribe is more equal than Brooks suggests.

Race Relations Project : I Guess It Pays to Learn a Bit About Other People

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:58:18 +0000

We can sit around all day and talk about how upsetting it is that we have to be suspicious of everyone, especially on airplanes, but the fact is that history repeats itself, and we’ve seen threats and attacks on airplanes too many times not to be concerned. I think the flight attendant did the right thing. The fact that she did take action makes me feel a little safer when thinking about flying. I feel that all too often suspicious matters are overlooked. I realize that we can’t live our lives being paranoid 24/7, but I think it’s important to take action when a situation is uncomfortable or doesn’t seem right. The flight attendant did just that, and I think others should give her credit for her courage to address the matter. On the other hand, I do feel bad that the boy was put in handcuffs. That seems slightly over-the-top, but then again it was probably just a basic precaution taken when the police first arrived. Honestly, I’m a little confused about the boy. He’s seventeen, so he has to be aware of what goes on in our country and people’s fears of attacks on airplanes. Yet he still decided that it was a good idea to do this Jewish prayer ritual. The last thing anyone on an airplane wants to do is attract attention to him/herself. No one wants to startle the rest of the people on board, and I would think a seventeen-year old would be aware of this. Granted this is a religious ritual of his, but I just think it’s important to think of how things appear to others, especially on an airplane. When I was younger, I decided painting my nails while flying would be a good way to pass the time. However, after a few minutes the area around me because to smell like nail polish, and I quickly put it away not wanting to scare anyone with the chemical smell because I knew even at a young age that it was better to blend in and that on an airplane any attention paid to someone usually meant suspicion of that person for a wrongdoing. However, I’m sure the boy learned his lesson and won’t be attracting attention to himself when flying anytime soon. Overall, this situation isn’t a big deal. The boy was simply praying and didn’t mean to startle anyone. Although the flight attendant mistakenly saw the boy as a threat, she did the right thing. No one is to blame; it was just a misunderstanding of cultural differences. Although there was no real threat, I think US Airways received good publicity from the flight attendant’s actions. People want to feel safe, and typically many people who are flying are uneasy now-a-days. However, this was a good example of security precautions being taken, and many people might think about it like this: if one US Airways flight attendant handled this situation bravely and cautiously, maybe all of them are trained to do this. More people might feel safer flying with US Airways than another airline. Overall, nothing bad really came out of this event, besides the boy being thrown into handcuffs. Luckily it doesn’t sound as if he, his family, or Rabbi Greenberg took offense to the precautions taken. No one was hurt, the flight attendant did the right thing, and US Airways received positive publicity. This doesn’t sound like a news-breaking story to me, but then again it’s nice to hear something positive in the headlines.

Race Relations Project : Last Name Begins with "R"

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:17:28 +0000

Race Relations Project : Clubbing the "Bejesus" Out of Rationality

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:18:14 +0000

Anyone of good decency realizes that the aftermath of a tragedy is a time for serving the victims and helping them get back on their feet. Doing so shows the character of an individual and does concern your race, ethnicity, or belief system. It is about the kind of person you are. Clearly Robertson lacks the common decency that is instilled in emotional, caring human beings. The disaster in Haiti has occurred. Now the most important thing is for the Haitians to keep up their spirits and uphold their beliefs. However, Robertson showed no compassion for these people. Robertson cannot even turn to his religion to “back up” his outlandish claim because Christianity teaches people to lead humble lives and to love and care for others above all else. It centers about a kind, forgiving God, not One who punishes. Now more than ever, most people are putting their best efforts forward to be Christian and give what help they can to the victims in Haiti. Robertson, on the other hand, felt that it was more important for him to try to justify the situation and encourage his followers not to feel bad for the Haitians. I am unaware of how many people believe Robertson, but sadly some are out there. At this time while most of the world is trying to aid Haiti, there are followers of Robertson out there who will not want to send money or even pray for the victims thanks to his claim. How people can consider him religious is beyond me. However, let’s hypothetically say Robertson’s claim was true. Is that supposed to mean that there are not innocent people suffering? If Robertson does believe that it was the Haitians fault, I think he is forgetting about all of the non-Haitian volunteers who were also victimized by the natural disaster. What is his justification for their suffering and their families’ suffering? However, this is beside the point. Honestly, what can we expect from Robertson? He claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath onto the United States due to legalized abortion. He also tried to say that he predicted 9/11. Clearly, the man just loves gaining publicity during disastrous times by trying to convince people that he has the answers. Hopefully the public does not believe his fallacies. Overall, I believe Robertson to be a very cold-hearted individual who does not think before he speaks and who cares little about humanity. He did not consider how he would be hurting others when he decided to come forward with his view about the situation. No genuinely religious person would have acted as he did. Robertson should have asked himself the famous Christian question, “WWJD?” (What Would Jesus Do?), before stating his outlandish claim during this devastating time.